Russell Coker wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2003 11:17, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:16:04PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > > root's home directory should be /
> >
> > thats pretty ugly because of all the .dot files you will accumulate in /,
> > like .bash_history, .xauthentication and even some temp files. Sure most
> > apps can be modified to not do that (ans most should not be used as root
> > anyway), but this was and still is a pretty valid reason for /root. Even if
> > the name is pretty dumb.
>
> Also there is the issue of where the root user can store the files that they
> create related to their work.
>
> When you have a machine with the root home dir as "/" then all users get to
> see the existance of any file that root creates, which is usually a bad idea.
the latter argument is a red herring. root can make his work files
anywhere he pleases (except perhaps on nfs mounts with root_squash). he
is not limited to /. he can use /var/spool/root if he wants. or make a
/.work for work files. perhaps /.GUM_not_allowed chmod 0700 would
perhaps be more descriptive ;)
the accumulation of dot files in / is one semi-valid argument.
do i _personally_ like having a ~root=/root? yes. i think it keeps /
very tidy; but it does sort of break rdist.
-john